Unless there is an exception to the rules I know, the words quibusdam and quocumque are paenultimately accentuated. Is this correct?

I had a feeling they might be antepaenultimae. I would also like it if someone could confirm that utraque is an antepaenultima. (Is it permissible metonymically to name a word after its accentuated syllable?)

I didn't say "etiam" was an enclitic, Laurentius. You accidentally proposed "quidem", which is in fact an enclitic (or can occur sometimes as one) that I had left out. You would more likely say "Etiam quidem", with "quidem" not beginning your sentence (unless the word was being emphasized to draw attention to itself as the word you were proposing, which is what the acute accent on the last syllable of an adverb signifies, coincidentally) and it's not an enclitic there, anyway, so it doesn't change the accent. Or at least I never read anywhere that a postpositive "quidem" counts as an enclitic and shifts the accent, but I'm still learning.

Lavrentivs wrote:I just found in Descartes, that one paragraph contains « siquidem » and the next « si quidem ». Could he have wanted to stress them differenty?

I don't know, if you mean purely a matter of accenting ("síquidem" and "sí quidèm" can sound pretty much the same to me, unless he says "sí quídem") but you might mean otherwise. If by distinguishing "siquidem" and "si quidem" there is a subtle distinction in sense, it may be between "siquidem" with "quidem" in a concessive sense ("granted or given that") and "si quidem" with "quidem" in an emphatic sense of "if indeed/really" (after A&G §322e).

"What else can it be? It's attached to a preceding word that inflects."

You seem to assume that whenever the first part of a composit inflects, the last is an enclitic. Of which I fail to see the plausibility; there is certainly nothing a priori about such a rule. Why can't it be a mere composite? Treating the -que as the enclitic seems much better to me. Thus, quodcum´que, not quod´cumque.

R. Whitney Tucker (1965), "Accentuation before Enclitics in Latin", Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, 96: 449-461 wrote:We must also remember that in Latin enclitics are of several different types, and that it is at least theoretically possible that these were treated differently with respect to accentuation. They may be listed as follows:

1. Inseparable enclitics, those which exist only in connection with a limited number of base-words, with no independent meaning of their own, where the resulting combination has a new and different meaning. The base-word and the enclitic may be said to have coalesced into a new word. Examples are -dam as in quidam, -dem as in Idem or quidem, -que (generalizing) as in quisque, -quis, etc. as in quisquis, -piam as in quispiam, and -cumque as in quicumque or ubicumque.

2. Separable, or movable, or optional enclitics, which may be attached at will to certain words, or to any word, when their specific meaning needs to be added. These are -que 'and,' -ve, -ne, -ce, -met and -te (as in tute), -pse and -pte, -nam, -dum. The first four of these are the classic examples usually cited by the ancient grammarians.

3. Normal words which may sometimes be used as enclitics; these are often difficult to identify, but still there are many cases where their enclitic character is unmistakable. Examples: various forms of esse and fieri, especially in the present tense; the personal and reflexive pronouns, and sometimes the demonstratives; cum; quis (as in siquis) ; per in parumper; inde as in deinde and proinde. (pp.450-1)

He says that enclitics may have been treated differently with respect to accentuation, but I had the impression that the enclitic were defined in terms of accentuation. If the accentuation is not enclitic, there is no enclitic, but a suffix, as far as I can see.

Question: If -inde in proinde is an enclitic, does that mean, it is to be pronounced: pro´i^nde?

He writes plainly. All he says is that this is the influence of the grammarians, or the schools. If anything, he says the tradition precedes the Carolingian Empire ("a grammatical tradition that was still current in the Carolingian period"—he references Priscian and Keil's Grammatici Antiqui) and draws attention to its continuance into the late Middle Ages ("and in rhythmic poetry—even that of the late Middle Ages—one occasionally finds some examples of these accentuations" [p.11]).